DOCSLIB.ORG

Metro Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metro Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Environmental Assessment BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Environmental Assessment Appendix A Technical Report Purpose and Need September 2019 Purpose and Need Technical Report CONTENTS METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................. 1-iii 1. Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Project Description ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.1. Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.2. Project Setting ........................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.1.3. Regional Transit System ........................................................................................................... 1-5 1.2. Project Background ........................................................................................................... 1-8 1.2.1. Policy Direction and Prior Planning ........................................................................................... 1-8 1.2.2. Environmental Review Process ................................................................................................ 1-9 1.3. Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................ 1-10 1.3.1. Project Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 1-10 1.3.2. Project Need............................................................................................................................ 1-10 1.4. Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 1-34 TABLES Table 1.1-1: Transitways with Connections to the Project Area ............................................................................. 1-7 Table 1.3-1: Existing Transit Service Characteristics ........................................................................................... 1-11 Table 1.3-2: Existing and Future Population ........................................................................................................ 1-21 Table 1.3-3: Existing and Future Employment ..................................................................................................... 1-23 Table 1.3-4: Vehicle Ownership and Income in the Project Area Communities .................................................. 1-26 Table 1.3-5: County Plans for Growth and Transportation ................................................................................... 1-29 Table 1.3-6: Community Local Plans for Growth and Transportation .................................................................. 1-31 Table 1.4-1: Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 1-34 SEPTEMBER 2019 A1-i Purpose and Need Technical Report CONTENTS METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project FIGURES Figure 1.1-1: METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project ................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 1.1-2: Project Area and Activity Centers ..................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 1.1-3: Regional Transitway System ............................................................................................................ 1-6 Figure 1.2-1: Previous Relevant Studies and Plans in the Project Area ................................................................ 1-8 Figure 1.3-1: Existing Transit Service and Facilities (Twin Cities Metropolitan Area System) ............................. 1-14 Figure 1.3-2: Midday Transit Frequency (Twin Cities Metropolitan Area System) ............................................... 1-15 Figure 1.3-3: 2017 Metro Freeway Congestion (Daily) ........................................................................................ 1-18 Figure 1.3-4: Percent Change in Average Daily Traffica – Existing to 2040 ......................................................... 1-19 Figure 1.3-5: 2010-2040 Population Growth in the Project Area ......................................................................... 1-22 Figure 1.3-6: 2010-2040 Employment Growth in the Project Area ...................................................................... 1-24 Figure 1.3-7: Zero-Vehicle Households in the Project Area Communities ........................................................... 1-27 SEPTEMBER 2019 A1-ii Purpose and Need Technical Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 2040 TPP (2018 Update) 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (2018 Update) BRT Bus Rapid Transit Council Metropolitan Council CSAH County State Aid Highway EA Environmental Assessment EB Eastbound EAW Environmental Assessment Worksheet FTA Federal Transit Administration I- Interstate LRT Light Rail Transit MEPA Minnesota Environmental Policy Act MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NB Northbound Project METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project RCRRA Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority SB Southbound TH Trunk Highway TOD Transit-Oriented Development USC U.S. Code vpd Vehicles per Day WB Westbound SEPTEMBER 2019 A1-iii Purpose and Need Technical Report ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project Page left intentionally blank. SEPTEMBER 2019 A1-iv Purpose and Need Technical Report PROJECT DESCRIPTION METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project 1. PURPOSE AND NEED This report describes the location and setting of the METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project (Project), the purpose of the Project, the needs driving the study of the Project, and the parameters the Metropolitan Council (Council) used to evaluate the Project. This report also provides an overview of previous planning studies and the environmental review process. 1.1. Project Description 1.1.1. Project Location The Project is a planned 9- to 10-mile transitway located in Ramsey and Washington counties in the eastern part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (see Figure 1.1-1). The Project generally would operate parallel to Interstate 94 (I-94) and would better connect downtown Saint Paul with the suburban cities of Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale and Woodbury. More broadly, the Project would better connect the eastern Twin Cities Metropolitan Area to the regional transit network via the Union Depot multimodal hub in downtown Saint Paul. The Project also intends to serve and draw ridership from other portions of the metropolitan area, including portions of eastern Washington County, Dakota County to the south, and the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County to the west. While the intended service area for the Project is larger, the documentation of the Project purpose and need focuses on those communities the Project expects to serve most directly: the communities within 2 miles of the proposed Build Alternatives. These are either communities in which the Project is physically located (Saint Paul, Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale and Woodbury) or a community within 2 miles of the proposed alignment (Lake Elmo). Together, these communities make up the Project area discussed below. SEPTEMBER 2019 A1-1 Purpose and Need Technical Report PROJECT DESCRIPTION METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project FIGURE 1.1-1: METRO GOLD LINE BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2019 A1-2 Purpose and Need Technical Report PROJECT DESCRIPTION METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project 1.1.2. Project Setting The character of the Project area changes from an urban setting in downtown and the east side of Saint Paul to a transitional suburban setting as it extends further east. The Project area includes a wide range of land uses including single-family, multifamily and mixed use residential; retail and other commercial; office; mixed use commercial; industrial; utility; parks; and undeveloped areas. Low-density, auto-oriented land uses heavily influenced much of the area’s existing development patterns, which primarily reflect highway-oriented regulations and traditional suburban development forms. The communities within the Project area include several key activity centers located along I-94 including downtown Saint Paul, Union Depot, Metro State University, the White Bear Avenue commercial area, Sun Ray Shopping Center, 3M campus, The Oaks Business Park, Tamarack Hills, 500 Bielenberg, and the Tamarack and Woodbury Villages (see Figure 1.1-2). This report defines key activity centers as employment, education and shopping destinations. Key transportation facilities in the Project area include the I-94 corridor, Saint Paul Downtown Airport shown in Figure 1.1-1, the regional transitway system shown in Figure 1.1-3, and multiple freight railways. SEPTEMBER 2019 A1-3 Purpose and Need Technical Report PROJECT DESCRIPTION METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project FIGURE 1.1-2: PROJECT AREA AND ACTIVITY CENTERS SEPTEMBER 2019 A1-4 Purpose and Need Technical Report PROJECT DESCRIPTION METRO Gold Line Bus Rapid Transit Project 1.1.3. Regional Transit System A mix of local and express bus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Your Ticket Andy Gitzla! of Washington County 651-430-4338 Or by E-Mail to the Southeast Metro [email protected] Planning Future Stations
    RED ROCK PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE CORRIDOR The Red Rock Corridor has seen population growth at a rate more than twice the state’s average. In the next 20 years, the southeast suburbs of the COMMISSION metropolitan area are projected to add more than 100,000 new residents. is a Joint Powers Commission of the following county rail PART OF A SYSTEM The Red Rock Corridor connects the southeastern suburbs with the entire authorities, corridor communities Twin Cities metro. Originating in Hastings, the corridor spans through and stakeholders: downtown St. Paul and on to downtown Minneapolis. Dakota County With a stop at the Union Depot in St. Paul, the Red Rock Corridor will seamlessly connect with Metro Transit buses, taxis, intercity buses, Central Hennepin County Corridor LRT, high-speed passenger rail from Chicago, Amtrak’s Empire Ramsey County Builder and future connections to both the Gateway and Rush Line Corridors. At the Minneapolis Interchange Station, Red Rock will connect Washington County to buses, taxis, Southwest LRT, Hiawatha LRT, Northstar commuter rail and Goodhue County* other planned future transitways. Newport St. Paul Park Minneapolis Hastings CP Railway* 3-FOR-1 Cottage Grove INVESTMENT The proposed high-speed rail line St. Paul connecting the Twin Cities to Chicago Denmark Twp. will share tracks with the Red Rock Corridor. Improvements to track Red Wing* 1 FREIGHT capacity and safety upgrades, including Prairie Island Indian Community* 2 lights, crossing gates, and additional COMMUTER RAIL tracks for a 3-for-1 investment in the corridor. *Non-voting members 3 HIGH-SPEED RAIL WWW.REDROCKRAIL.ORG Contact: Your Ticket Andy Gitzla! of Washington County 651-430-4338 or by e-mail to the Southeast Metro [email protected] Planning future stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee
    Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee September 26, 2016 The Goal . Implementation Plan that Outlines: . Detailed technical elements . Service plan, stations, vehicles, etc. Station area plans . Schedule and costs of staged investments . Partner responsibilities through 2040 . Stakeholder buy-in and detailed resolutions of support 2 Implementation Plan – Committee Structure TAC B-CAC RRCC Technical Business and Red Rock Advisory Civic Advisory Corridor Committee Committee Commission Staff from MnDOT, the Staff and leaders from Staff and elected officials Metropolitan Council, Metro businesses and civic from the cities and counties Transit, and the cities and organizations along the along the corridor counties along the corridor corridor 3 Bus Rapid Transit Alignment 4 Potential BRT Phases . Frequency: 15 minutes (30 minutes 7pm-12am) . Span: 5am-12am . BRT station amenities . Potential Phases: 1. To Cottage Grove w/o Gateway Stations 2. Add Gateway Stations 3. To Hastings Depot 4. Add last two Hastings Stations Evaluation of BRT Phases Ridership In-Service Daily PPISH Year PPISH* Increase Hours Boardings Target Needed BRT Phase 1 2024 92 1,070 12 114% ≥25 (To Cottage Grove) 2040 92 1,240 14 85% BRT Phase 2 2024 96 1,550 16 55% (add Gateway ≥25 Stations) 2040 96 1,800 19 33% BRT Phase 3 2040 114 2,000 18 ≥25 43% (to Hastings) BRT Phase 4 (final 2040 135 2,200 16 ≥25 54% Hastings stations) Red Line 2040 73 4,700 65 ≥25 ----- *Passengers per In-Service Hour = daily boardings divided by in-service hours 6 Ridership Increase Needed to Meet Regional Target . BRT Phase 2 (to Cottage Grove with Gateway Stations) is the best performing option in 2040 .
    [Show full text]
  • City of Forest Lake 2040 Comprehensive Plan June 2018
    DRAFT City of Forest Lake 2040 Comprehensive Plan June 2018 Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Vision and Goals .................................................................................................... 1 Background/History of the Community ............................................................... 2 Purpose of the Plan ............................................................................................... 3 Process ................................................................................................................... 3 Regional Setting .................................................................................................... 3 II. Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 6 Land Use Goals and Objectives ............................................................................. 6 Forecasts and Current Demographics .................................................................. 7 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................. 10 Future Land Use .................................................................................................. 15 Natural Resources ............................................................................................... 24 Special Resource Protection ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arterial Transitway Corridors Study Final Report
    Arterial Transitway Corridors Study April 2012 Prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Connetics Transportation Group Luken Architecture CR Planning April 2012 Final Report i CONTENTS Table of Contents Introduction to the Arterial Transitway Corridors Study ................................................................................................ 1 Why were these corridors selected for study? ......................................................................................................................................................2 What problems does the study address? (Purpose and Need) .........................................................................................................................3 What is Arterial Bus Rapid Transit? ........................................................................................................................................................................4 Study Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................................................................................................................5 What was studied in the ATCS?......................................................................................................................................... 7 Physical Concept Plans ............................................................................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • AGENDA Rush Line Corridor Task Force Meeting February 18 at 4:30 P.M
    AGENDA Rush Line Corridor Task Force Meeting February 18 at 4:30 p.m. Virtual Meeting via Zoom Web access / call‐in instructions to be sent separately Item: Action Requested: Chair Victoria Reinhardt 1. Call to Order/Introductions Chair Victoria Reinhardt 2. Approval of the Agenda Approval Chair Victoria Reinhardt 3. Summary of July 23, 2020 Meeting Approval All 4. Member Updates Discussion Frank Alarcon, Ramsey County 5. State and Federal Legislative Update Information Public Works 6. 2021 Draft Workplan and Budget Andy Gitzlaff, Ramsey County Information Public Works Andy Gitzlaff, Ramsey County 7. Rush Line BRT Project Update Information Public Works Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.021 and 13D.04 Subd. 3, the Chair of the Rush Line Corridor Task Force has determined that an in‐person meeting is not practical or prudent because of the COVID‐19 pandemic and the declared state and local emergencies. Committee members will participate by telephone or other electronic means. In addition, it may not be feasible to have any committee members, staff or members of the public present at the regular meeting location due to the COVID‐19 pandemic and the declared emergencies. The meeting broadcast will be available online and a link to view the broadcast can be obtained by registering here. Members of the public and the media will be able to watch the public meeting live online. For questions related to this material, please contact Andy Gitzlaff at 651‐266‐2772 or [email protected]. Rush Line Corridor Task Force – February 18, 2021 1 Agenda Item #3 Rush Line Corridor Task Force Meeting July 23, 2020, 4:30 – 6:00 pm via ZOOM Draft Meeting Summary MEMBERS: Tom Fischer, Little Canada Councilmember Ben Montzka, Chisago County Commissioner John Mikrot, Pine County Commissioner D.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study (Started in January 2000) That Would Evaluate the Constraints and Opportunities of Operating Commuter Rail Service in the Red Rock Corridor
    Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary. E-1 1.0 Introduction . 1-1 1.1 Description of Red Rock Corridor . 1-1 1.2 Management . 1-2 1.3 Study Overview. 1-3 2.0 Public Involvement Program . 2-1 2.1 TAC and RRCC Meetings . 2-1 2.2 Open Houses. 2-1 2.3 Land Use Forum . 2-1 2.4 Station Area Planning Workshops . 2-2 2.5 Newsletters. 2-2 2.6 Web Site . 2-2 3.0 Purpose and Need . 3-1 3.1 Corridor Characteristics and Trends . 3-1 3.2 Project Need . 3-1 3.3 Goals, Objectives, and Criteria. 3-3 4.0 Alternatives Analysis . 4-1 4.1 Screening of Technology Options . 4-1 4.2 Summary of New FTA Rules for Major Capital Investments . 4-6 4.3 Definition of A Baseline Alternative . 4-8 4.4 Definition of a Build Alternative . 4-9 4.5 Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Applications . 4-9 5.0 Station Area Planning . 5-1 5.1 Land Use Forum . 5-1 5.2 Station Area Planning Workshops . 5-2 6.0 Commuter Rail Service Plan . 6-1 6.1 Overview . 6-1 6.2 Initial Train Schedule Timetable . 6-4 6.3 Demand Forecast . 6-5 6.4 Rolling Stock . 6-6 6.5 Maintenance and Layover Facilities . 6-7 6.6 Capacity Improvements . 6-7 7.0 Financial Analysis . 7-1 7.1 Capital Costs . 7-1 7.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs . 7-3 7.3 Comparison to Other Rail Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • November 15, 2017 the Honorable Paul
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp November 15, 2017 The Honorable Paul Torkelson, Chair The Honorable Scott Newman, Chair House Transportation Finance Committee Senate Transportation Finance & Policy Committee 381 State Office Building 3105 Minnesota Senate Building Saint Paul, MN 55155 Saint Paul, MN 55155 The Honorable Linda Runbeck, Chair The Honorable Scott Dibble House Transportation & Regional Governance Policy Ranking Minority Member Committee Senate Transportation Finance & Policy Committee 417 State Office Building 2213 Minnesota Senate Building Saint Paul, MN 55155 Saint Paul, MN 55155 The Honorable Frank Hornstein, DFL Lead The Honorable Connie Bernardy, DFL Lead House Transportation Policy & Finance Committee House Transportation & Regional Governance Policy 243 State Office Building Committee Saint Paul, MN 55155 253 State Office Building Saint Paul, MN 55155 RE: 2017 Guideway Status report Dear Legislators: The Minnesota Department of Transportation, in collaboration with the Metropolitan Council, is pleased to provide the 2017 Guideway Status report as required under 2016 Minnesota Statutes 174.93, subdivision 2. This report updates information for eight guideway corridors currently in operation, construction or design, and thirteen more that are in planning or analysis phase, or that were at the time of the last report in 2015. The capacity analysis looks at regional guideway funding needs and resources related to capital, operations and capital maintenance for the next ten years. If you have specific questions about this report or want additional information, please contact MnDOT’s Brian Isaacson at [email protected] or at 651 234-7783; or, you can contact Met Council’s Cole Hiniker at [email protected] or at 651 602-1748.
    [Show full text]
  • East Metro Rail Capacity Study October 2012
    EAST METRO RAIL CAPACITY STUDY OCTOBER 2012 PREPARED FOR: IN PARTNERSHIP WITH: PREPARED BY: East Metro Rail Capacity Study Prepared for Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority in partnership with Red Rock Corridor Commission By the Study Team of: TranSystems Corporation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Rani Engineering The 106 Group Ltd. American Engineering Testing, Inc. LTK Engineering Services David Simpson Consultants HAD-Rail Consulting Services David Evans and Associates, Inc. Table of Contents Definitions Abbreviations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 Study Background and Purpose .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Partners ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Scope of Study .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.0 Study Process ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Project Development Process ....................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Study
    [Show full text]
  • Transit - Keeping the Twin Cities Moving John Levin, Metro Transit Amy Vennewitz, Metropolitan Council
    Transit - Keeping the Twin Cities Moving John Levin, Metro Transit Amy Vennewitz, Metropolitan Council City Engineers Association of Minnesota Annual Meeting January 28, 2009 Overview • Where we are – Regional Transit Summary – Service Planning Basics – Park & Ride System • Where we are going – 2030 Transportation Policy Plan – Transitway Project Development & Progress – Transit Funding Outlook Regional Transit Summary • 94.6 million rides in 2008 Rail 11% Local Express – Up 6.5% over 2007 73% 14% ADA – Up 17.5% over 2005 Dial-a-ride Vanpool • Over 1,000 buses in 2% service in peak hour Regional Transit Service Service Planning Basics • Role of transit • Transit market areas • Sector study process • Park & Ride planning Reasons for Providing Transit • Provide mobility, travel options • Support efficient land use • Add capacity in congested corridors • Maximize public investment in transportation network Why People Use Transit Transit Trip Purpose • 80 percent of transit users are going to or from work or school What makes transit successful • Match transit service to demand – Density drives transit demand – Define regional market areas • Transit that serves customers – Cost savings: vehicle, fuel, parking – Travel time competitive – Convenient • Frequent service • Direct route Employment Count Employment Density Residential Count Residential Density Transit Market Areas • Market area reflects estimated demand for transit based on density of: – Total Population – Transit dependent population (Total population over 16 – number of cars) – Number of jobs • Determines level of service appropriate for a given area Transit Improvement Planning • Routine route maintenance • Sector Study approach • Short-term Service Improvement Plan • Transit Master Study and Transportation Policy Plan – Transitway network Sector Study Key Objectives • Simplify system • Faster service to major destinations • Improve connections & reliability – Enhanced timed transfers (esp.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    PLANNING STATION AREA PLANNING FINAL REPORT for the 4 proposed commuter rail stations along the southeast AREA portion of the Red Rock Corridor: • ST. PAUL (LOWER AFTON) • NEWPORT • COTTAGE GROVE (LANGDON VILLAGE) STATION • HASTINGS Sponsored by Red Rock Corridor Commission (RRCC) REPORT 11660 Myeron Road N Stillwater, MN 55082 CORRIDOR 651.430.4300 ROCK RED FINAL RED ROCK CORRIDOR Blank Page ii Station Area Planning Final Report - January 2012 RED ROCK CORRIDOR FUNDING PARTNERS This study was funded by federal funds from the Federal Transit Ad- ministration (FTA) through a grant agreement between Washington County Regional Railroad Authority (WCRRA) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) The local match is provided by the Regional Railroad Authorities of Washington, Ramsey and Dakota Counties as part of their contribu- tions to the Red Rock Corridor Commission. A portion of the funding for this study was also provided by the Counties Transit Improvement Board. The Counties Transit Im- provement Board is taking regional transit to the next level in the metropolitan area. Since April 2008, five counties – Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington – have utilized a quarter-cent sales tax and a $20 a motor vehicle sales tax, permitted by the Min- nesota Legislature, to invest in and advance transitway projects by awarding annual capital and operating grants. The Counties Transit Improvement Board works in collaboration with the Metropolitan Council and Carver and Scott counties. iii Station Area Planning Final Report
    [Show full text]
  • Guideway Status November 2013
    2013 Legislative Report Guideway Status November 2013 Prepared by The Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 Phone: 651-366-3000 Toll-Free: 1-800-657-3774 TTY, Voice or ASCII: 1-800-627-3529 In collaboration with the Metropolitan Council 390 Robert St. North St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 Phone: 651-602-1000 To request this document in an alternative format Please call 651-366-4718 or 1-800-657-3774 (Greater Minnesota). You may also send an email to [email protected]. Cover Photos: Northstar commuter rail train Red Line (Cedar BRT) vehicle on at Target Field opening day Source: Metro Council Source: Metro Council Green Line (Central Corridor LRT) Blue Line (Hiawatha LRT) in vehicle on tracks for testing operation Source: Streets MN Source: Metro Council 2 Guideway Status Report November 2013 Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Legislative Request............................................................................................................................................. 5 Statutory Requirement ......................................................................................................................... 5 Cost of Report ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City of Forest Lake 2040 Comprehensive Plan June 2018 Table of Contents I
    DRAFT City of Forest Lake 2040 Comprehensive Plan June 2018 Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Vision and Goals .................................................................................................... 1 Background/History of the Community ............................................................... 2 Purpose of the Plan ............................................................................................... 3 Process ................................................................................................................... 3 Regional Setting .................................................................................................... 3 II. Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 6 Land Use Goals and Objectives ............................................................................. 6 Forecasts and Current Demographics .................................................................. 7 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................. 10 Future Land Use .................................................................................................. 15 Natural Resources ............................................................................................... 24 Special Resource Protection ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]